Very thoughtful and helpful responses - thanks!/ScottGee1
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:42:19 -0800, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ScottGee1 wrote:
>
> >I've gotta believe this is an old discussion but it's not an easy
> >search on google or in the archives because the strings are so common.
> >
> >
> There is indeed a great deal in the archives about these lenses. But
> first, definition. I assume you are defining 'better' in terms of
> sharpness, rather than color, tonality, suitability for portaits, etc.
>
> The unsimple answer is that a late f1.8 is better than an early f1.4 or
> f1.8 and a late f1.4 is better than either early version. The problem is
> that there are at least 5 versions of each lens, as the designs were
> changed and improved with changing technology over the many years that
> they were made. My first Zuiko was a very early 50/1.8 and it is not a
> very good lens by later standards, not even as good as the 35-70/3.6
> zoom that I bought a bit later.
>
> >Does a consensus exist as to which is 'better'?
> >
> Sort of... 50/1.4 lenses with serial # above 1,085,000 and 50/1.8s that
> say made in Japan on the front ring and have the serial number on the
> side of the mount (with the possibility that serial # >5,500,000 is
> better) are the best versions of each in optical terms of resolution and
> contrast. As to which of these is 'better', I would guess that if one
> took identical shots taken with one of each at any middle stops, blew
> them up to huge size and asked a bunch of 'experts' to pick which is
> which from the photos, the experts would split about evenly or throw up
> their hands.
>
> They are both just excellent lenses in their last versions, but one can
> say with certainty that one is better than the other at f1.4. :-)
>
> Mechanically, all f1.4s are fine. Early and late versions of the f1.8
> are fine. However, the f1.8s with the marking 'MC' on the front ring
> commonly develop a problem where oil, probably a breakdown product of
> the helical grease, migrates to the aperture mechanism. This often
> results in an aperture that is slow to return from closed, sometimes not
> moving at all. Simple enough to clean for the mechanically adept, but
> not worth the cost of professional cleaning. I also encountered this in
> one of the four miJ lenes in the 3 million serial # range that have
> passed through my hands. I don't know how common that may be, as I
> haven't heard it talked about all the time like the problem with the
> 'MC' version, but I would check before buying an early miJ.
>
> Another think to keep in mind is that all of these lenses are anywhere
> from quite a few years to decades old. A lot can happen to lenses over
> that time period. I'm sure it is possible to find a specific SC f1.8
> that is better than a particular very late f1.4 which has led a
> traumatic life. While not a sure indicator, external cosmetics will tend
> to say something about how a lens has been used and treated. A nice
> clean, newish looking lens has a better percentage chance of being as
> good as new optically than does one with obvious external signs of
> knocks and bumps.
>
> Take a look at the eSIF for more on lens markins, terminology, etc
> <http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/lensterms.htm>. Look
> at Gary's lens tests to get an idea of the range of performance of teh
> 50mm lenses over the years of production
> <http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|